ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
Long-term evaluation of adhesion formation and foreign body response to three new meshes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Introducing the Mesh Integration (MINT) Index: a standardised ratio scale for assessing in vivo hernia mesh performance.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Standardization of laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair for incisional hernia: Impact on clinical outcome and quality-of-life (LIPOM trial, NCT 02089958).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- ComparativeBiomacromolecules · 2024Article
- Development of a cellulose-based prosthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse treatment:Materials today. Bio · 2021Article
- In-vivo evaluation of a reinforced ovine biologic: a comparative study to available hernia mesh repair materials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Prevention of incisional hernia using different suture materials for closing the abdominal wall: a comparison of PDS, Vicryl and Prolene in a rat model.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Non-Cross-Linked Collagen Mesh Performs Best in a Physiologic, Noncontaminated Rat Model.Surgical innovation · 2019Article
- The Importance of Registries in the Postmarketing Surveillance of Surgical Meshes.Annals of surgery · 2018Article
- A polypropylene mesh modified with poly-ε-caprolactone nanofibers in hernia repair: large animal experiment.International journal of nanomedicine · 2018Article
- In vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models: a review of biocompatibility.International urogynecology journal · 2017Review
- Adhesion prevention in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study comparing three lightweight porous meshes recommended for intraperitoneal use.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017Article
- Outcomes of bridging versus mesh augmentation in laparoscopic repair of small and medium midline ventral hernias.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Reinforcement of peritoneal repair in donor site post-concurrent laparotomy and rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction using autologous dermal graft repair from zone 4 of deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: A case series in Asian patients.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMesh-related adhesions are a significant clinical problem following intraperitoneal mesh placement. In this study, we evaluated adhesion formation to three relatively new meshes for intraperitoneal use.
methodsThree new meshes for intraperitoneal use (Omyra(®) mesh, Physiomesh(®), and Hi-Tex Endo-IP(®)) were implanted intraperitoneally in rats and compared with a polypropylene control mesh (Parietene(®)) after 7 or 90 days. Adhesion formation, incorporation (tensile strength), shrinkage, and foreign body reaction were scored.
resultsHi-Tex Endo-IP and Physiomesh(®) showed significantly less adhesion formation when compared to Parietene at both time points (p < 0.05). Shrinkage was highest in Omyra mesh after 90 days, which was significantly more compared to Parietene(®) (p < 0.001). Physiomesh(®) only showed a significant reduction in craniocaudal mesh length, compared to Parietene and Hi-Tex Endo-IP (p < 0.05). After 90 days, Hi-Tex Endo-IP(®) showed significantly higher and Physiomesh(®) significantly lower incorporation strengths compared to all other groups (p < 0.05). Microscopic evaluation revealed massive foreign body reaction to Hi-Tex Endo-IP(®), leading to an extensive and thick collagenous scar adherent to the abdominal wall. Fractioning of the Physiomesh(®) coating over time led to an increase in interfilamentary granuloma formation, leading to scar plate formation, but with only minimal to no abdominal wall adherence. Both Parietene(®) and Omyra(®) showed a mild foreign body response.
conclusionAlthough clear distinctions can be made between meshes and some meshes excel, none of the meshes are superior in all aspects required for effective and safe incisional hernia repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.